Public ownership of the public water system Ireland - privitisation & the Troika

John Lahart, Fianna Fáil

The following is based on an interchange during last week's Joint Oireachtas Committee on Funding Domestic Water, January 25, 2017,  between John Lahart Fianna Fáil, Mr Séamas Ó  Tuathail, SC, and Maria Graham, DHPCLG.

What especially interested us was the context of Mr Lahart's questions which Séamas Ó  Tuathail described as

"very well informed."

 

Séamas Ó  Tuathail, SC

However,  besides being well informed we wonder whether there might also be some substance behind this particular question from Mr Lahart

"Was the privatisation of water services ever agreed or discussed with the troika at any stage?  Is there anything available on that? "

Maria Graham, Dept of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government

We would indeed like to know if there is anything available on that one.  Unfortunately this question was not answered.  We have a sneaky feeling that there may indeed be substance especially in light of what everyone in the anti Irish Water campaign knows as a result of the settingup of Irish Water Ltd,  Government's connivance and the true nature of the Troika (Privatising Industry in Europe).

 

We wonder too why Mr Lahart asked such a question and whether he might be keeping his powder dry on that one.

 

Note in the following transcript Ms Maria Graham   says " I think I attended all of the meetings with the troika ".   Less than convincing we should say and a more in-depth investigation into this one would be very interesting.


Full transcript of the exchange
 

Deputy John Lahart:   I have a few comments, and I thank our guests for their comprehensive documents today, and their presentations. Ms Graham in her opening statement mentioned the initial set up of Irish Water and how it was envisaged that the utility would be a public utility, a State body in public ownership. Some of the contributions seem to suggest that all the problems around this emerged out of nothing, or ex nihilo, as Mr. Ó Tuathail suggested. I am interested in what Ms Graham says was the original intention. It is worth briefly recapping on why we are here, and how it became so muddled and confused for people. It looked suspiciously like Irish Water was being prepared for privatisation through a whole series of actions. This was not something in people's imaginations, despite what the original motivation might have been. The Government at the time went against its own consultant's report in setting up Irish Water as a subsidiary of Bord Gáis. Parts of Bord Gáis were subsequently privatised and sold off. That gave rise to suspicions. It was given to Bord Gáis on the one hand because it was stated that Bord Gáis had the operational capacity to deal with it yet there was this necessity for huge sums of public money to be paid out to external consultants for Irish Water. Demonstrably, Bord Gáis did not have the capacity to deal with all the aspects of it. There was the speed with which it was set up.

Chairman:   Does the Deputy have a question?

Deputy John Lahart:   I do, yes.

Chairman:   Can he get to it?

Deputy John Lahart:   I will, yes, but other people have made statements. There was the speed with which it was set up, there was the Siteserv element. There were a number of issues, not least the guillotining of the debate about it, that have brought us here, unnecessarily to some degree. We are here because of all those missteps that were taken along the way, and I think, Cathaoirleach, that has to be borne in mind by the committee.

Chairman:   What is the question?

Deputy John Lahart:   I am coming to it now. The public ownership and the lack of confidence the public developed over time in Irish Water were key findings of the commission. That was not something created by the Opposition. It was created by the manner in which Irish Water conducted itself. My questions are these. Was the privatisation of water services ever agreed or discussed with the troika at any stage? Is there anything available on that? Has the Department ever considered a model such as that currently being rolled out in England, and already exists in Scotland, where the network would be retained by Irish Water but where private operators could sell wholesale? If Irish Water or the Department had considered that, would a proposed constitutional protection safeguard against that? That question is directed to Ms. Graham and to Mr. Ó Tuathail. Thank you for your forbearance on this, Chair. We have talked about constitutional amendments, and Mr Ó Tuathail is convinced that that is the only way to handle it, so as a citizen and public representative I am interested in two aspects of this. Did you write the wording for the right to water campaign?

Mr. Séamas Ó Tuathail: Yes, I wrote it.

Deputy John Lahart:   Okay. Many of us who are old enough to remember the potential for constitutional amendments to defy the original intentions of their proponents. What kind of controls can be put in place to avoid a referendum result, and therefore decisions on water, eventually ending up being decisions of the Judiciary?

Chairman:   Good question.

Mr. Séamas Ó Tuathail: I will let Ms Graham go first.

Ms Maria Graham: If I can reflect in a general way on some of the points. The water services legislation of 2007 was approximately ten years in gestation, and it was considered serious enough at that point to put protections in against the privatisation of assets, before Irish Water was contemplated. That was an important point at that stage.  When we moved into the reform process, PricewaterhouseCoopers was specifically asked to report on the use of State utilities. Because of the time available to us under the agreement with the troika to establish the new utility, we were given a series of points which would have to be satisfied were we to have it under an existing utility such as Bord Gáis.

I have been involved in the water sector since 2009. I think I attended all of the meetings with the troika and the issue of privatisation was not raised. The Department only looked at the models included in the PricewaterhouseCoopers report such as the local authority agency model, among others. The question of privatisation or preparing for it was never on our agenda, pre or post-Irish Water.

Chairman:   I thank Ms Graham for clarifying the matter.

Mr. Séamas Ó Tuathail: The context of Deputy John Lahart's question was very well informed. Ms Graham has answered the first and second questions. Legislation should be brought forward to reflect the intent and impact of the constitutional amendment, when and if it is carried.

 

Source:  Oireachtas Debate, Jan 25, 2017


Protesting is not a crime - Jobstown protesters' court case looming

 

Below is an extract from the Jobstown Not Guilty pamphlet ‘Protesting Is Not a Crime’.   Download full document here #jobstownnotguilty 

On October 21 2016 a 17 year oldwas found guilty of false imprisonment in the Children's Court, Dublin.  Now seven adult protesters will face trial on April 24 2017 for false imprisonment in the Central Criminal Court of Justice.

 

 

 

Judge John King found a 17 year old student guilty of false imprisonment – a verdict a barrister described as “a recipe for totalitarianism”.

This related to an anti water charges protest in Jobstown, Tallaght in Dublin on 15 November 2014, where then Tánaiste Joan Burton’s car was delayed for 2 ½ hours by a spontaneous community protest.

The 18 adults now awaiting trial from April 2017 face sentences up to life imprisonment. The trials, which will be six to eight weeks long, themselves will place enormous stress and strain on the defendants. If jailed, families would be left in very difficult situations, with jobs lost and parents in prison. If TD Paul Murphy is jailed for more than six months, he will be removed as a TD, denying the democratic choice of people of Dublin South West.

 

 

The political establishment and the supportive media are desperate to tarnish the anti water charges movement as a violent, anti-democratic mob.  By grossly misrepresenting and using what happened in Jobstown they want to weaken our democratic rights and so make it easier to impose economic inequality.

The laws used to directly seize the Property Tax from wages or benefits as well as the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (RDMPI) legislation used to rob the wages of public servants, show that this attack is real.

The definition of ‘false imprisonment’ is being changed and this affects you. Any temporary delay or obstruction at a protest or picket, which for example inconveniences a politician, could be deemed false imprisonment. This is about intimidating people and criminalising protest.

Please read this information booklet. If you agree that a miscarriage of justice is being prepared, help us because together we can stop this attack on democratic right and change Ireland for the better.

 

 

Source: #jobstownnotguilty  


Has Fianna Fáil crossed the Rubicon on Water Charges? Well maybe.

Buncrana Together has this week received a reply from Charlie McConalogue, Fianna Fáil Spokesperson for Agriculture, Food & Marine to questions we asked him about his party's response to our concerns articulated very clearly by Marian Harkin, MEP,  (see Irish Water Charges, who decides Brussels or Dublin?). 

These concerns relate to Ireland's implementation of it's next phase of the River Basin Management Plan, 2015-2021.  Every EU country is committed to producing 3 River Basin Management Plans as part of the EU Water Framework Directive 2000.  Each phase outlines in 7 year cycles it's plans for water infrastructure and it's funding.  After the 3rd and final plan it is hoped that each country will reach the goals as set out in the Water Framework Directive.  

By the way Ireland's first plan 2007-2014 included our hard won 9.4 Exemption and domestic water charges was funded through general taxation and water infrastructure was the responsibility of local authorities and government public bodies.

Charlie McConalogue, Fianna Fáil TD speaking at an Anti Water Charge demonstration in Carndonagh, Co Donegal early last year.

(At the outset we must point out that we have tried to highlight the importance and immediacy of this issue, by email, publicising and through social media.  However, Mr McConalogue has been the only one, so far, to respond.  This includes the Anti Water Charges movement in general, a sad and unbelievable outcome).

Mr McConalogue response was

"Fianna Fáil believes that established practise in Ireland refers to the situation that prevailed when the Water Framework Directive was established.  This means paying for  water via general taxation.  Our legal advice upholds the view that it is legally possible for Ireland to end water charges.

The next River Basin Management Plan has not been submitted pending the review of the Expert Water Commission. In our submission to that commission Fianna Fáil outlined its opposition to domestic water charges and upon a final decision by the Oireachtas on the matter we expect the River Basin Management plan will reflect that view. "

 

Mr McConalogue refers to 'Expert Water Commission', (see our article Establishment of an Expert Commission on Domestic Public Water Services).  The findings of this Commission are due out later this month and will go before the Oireachtas in February and a vote on the final recommendations will be held by the end of March next year.

Mr McConalogue's response,  is indeed grounds for optimism and together with their decision last week to back a recent Water Referendum Bill  it would seem to confirm that the Party have finally committed to a decision on Irish Water Ltd and the Water Charges issue.  

Many people in Ireland, including ourselves have been skeptical about Fianna Fáil's promises, no doubt due to their involvement and handling of the collapse of the Irish economy and the bank bailout in 2008.  Buncrana Together has repeatedly questioned Fianna Fáil's commitment to their Party's clear policies and their TD's promises with regards to abolishing Irish Water and Water Charges (see our article Fianna Fáil's Four Core Principles).  

Their stance last June when they stood up to threats from the EU Environment Commissioner Karmenu Vella over the Water Framework Directive, was a further indication of this commitment .  An incident which Fine Gael Minister Simon Coveney described as the "political war over water charges in Ireland".

However, Fianna Fáil's policies were called into question at the beginning of this month when John McGuinness, a high ranking Fianna Fáil TD said "many members of the party did not know what the party's policy on water charges was.  We are trying to be on both sides of the argument." Irish Times, Nov 1.

To us,  who have been skeptical, this was a timely intervention, bearing in mind the results of the 'Independent' Water Commission are due out this month.  We can only assume by this stage that Fianna Fáil have met, discussed and finalised their position on Water Charges.   A conclusion which is borne out by Mr McConalogue's response and the party's stance on the Water Referendum Bill.